Vermont transportation officials outline $160M-plus bridge program, flag cost increases and flood repairs

Carolyn Koda, P.E., the structures program manager, told the Senate Transportation Committee on March 21 that the agency’s Structures and Hydraulics group manages preservation, rehabilitation and new-construction work for the state’s bridges, large culverts and retaining walls.

Koda said the FY26 program for bridges totals roughly $161 million across three subprograms — interstate, state highway and town highway bridges — and includes emergency-repair work from the 2023–24 floods. "Right now, we were just over a hundred and 60,000,000 in fiscal year 25, and the share of our program is about a hundred and 60,000,000 total in 2026," Koda said.

The committee was given a program-level breakdown and project highlights, and members pressed staff for condition and lifecycle metrics rather than dollars alone. "The dollars don't mean crap to me," said one committee member, asking for year‑over‑year work completed and counts of bridges in each condition category. Koda and other staff agreed to provide condition and lifecycle charts showing age, work completed and remaining needs.

Why it matters: Committee members emphasized that the recent influx of federal infrastructure money and flood-driven emergency projects has raised program totals and complicated long-term planning. Members said they want to understand whether the current elevated spending is a temporary spike to address flood damage and IIJA-funded opportunities or a sustained new baseline.

Most important details

- Funding shares: Koda said interstate bridge work is typically 90% federal/10% state; state highway bridges often 80% federal/20% state; town highway bridge projects are generally 80% federal with varying state/local matches (state shares quoted as 15%, 17.5% or 0% in some cases, with local shares of 10%, 5% or 2.5%). Emergency projects tied to the 2023–24 floods were described as funded about 81.08% federal/18.92% state in one example. The FHWA and IIJA were cited as sources of federal funding; FEMA and ARPA funds were also noted in some flood-related projects.

- Program totals and composition: Koda summarized FY26 totals and counts: roughly $45 million for the interstate bridge program (about $42M federal), about $75M in the state highway bridge program (about $61M federal), and about $37M in the town highway bridge program (about $32M federal). For the overall bridges portfolio, staff cited 59 funded projects in the program, 26 emergency projects, and 70 projects funded for construction in the current program snapshot.

- Expanded-cost and bid pressures: Staff identified a set of projects with large cost increases relative to earlier estimates. Examples discussed included Colchester (an Access 17 project) with an increase attributable to inflation and scope refinement, and other projects whose preliminary-plan estimates dated back to 2014 or earlier and therefore looked much larger when rebid in the current market. Koda said some increases reflected updated, refined estimates and recent bid history.

- Project highlights and risks: Staff reviewed notable projects: the Hartford–Lebanon bi‑state interstate bridge share; the Royalton rehabilitation (multi‑year, ~$9M spent this year); a Springfield I‑91 CMGC project; Richmond deck rehabilitation; the Richmond/Westminster projects; the Burlington–Winooski design‑build replacement (noted as having a federal grant but with a funding gap and a current approximate total near $70M); and numerous culvert and small‑structure emergency repairs. Staff warned that design‑build and grant timing create deadlines: federal RAISE/race grant authorization deadlines could require construction authorization by Sept. 30, 2026, or risk losing funds.

- Town highway bridge program: The town program was budgeted at about $38M with 52 projects funded; standard shares for federally eligible town bridges were described as 80% federal, roughly 15% state and 5% local if a temporary bridge is not required, with alternate splits when temporary work is needed.

- Lifecycle and condition tracking requested: Committee members repeatedly asked staff to report the number of bridges by condition categories and age bands (life‑cycle position) rather than dollars alone; staff agreed to provide condition and life‑cycle charts and inspection data (native inspection reports are available on the agency’s online transparency/map tools, staff noted).

Staff cautioned that market conditions, limited contractor capacity in Vermont and ongoing emergency projects from multiple flood events are driving higher costs and single‑bid occurrences on some projects. Committee members asked for a standing briefing on how shifting federal grant awards or lost federal funds would affect the state’s project priorities and bonding decisions.

Ending

Committee members asked the agency to follow up with data showing counts of bridges by condition and age band, and with a clearer dashboard showing which large projects depend on federal grants or deadlines. Koda and staff agreed to provide those charts and more detailed project‑level information to the committee.